PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS LAW First Sem Cases PDF

Preview

Summary

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS Digested by: DC 2016 Members Editors: Tricia Lacuesta PERSONS AND Lorenzo Gayya Cristopher Reyes Macky Siazon Janine Arenas Ninna Bonsol Lloyd Javier FAMILY RELATIONS LAW First Sem Cases Persons and Family Relations Law Table of Contents Preliminaries2 Human Relations 14 Pr...

Description

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS Digested by: DC 2016 Members Editors: Tricia Lacuesta Lorenzo Gayya Cristopher Reyes Macky Siazon Janine Arenas Ninna Bonsol Lloyd Javier

PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS LAW First Sem Cases

Persons and Family Relations Law

Table of Contents Preliminaries2 Human Relations

14

Prejudicial Question Civil Personality Citizenship

34

Marriage

35

Void Marriages

29

33

46

Psychological Incapacity 53 Voidable Marriages 76 Legal Separation

78

Rights and Obligations between Husband & Wife

81

Property Relations 85 The Family as an Institution

103

Family Home106 Paternity and Filiation Adoption

125

Support

130

108

Parental Authority 131

1 | Page

Persons and Family Relations Law PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS Preliminaries LORENZO M. TANADA v. HON. JUAN C. TUVERA G.R. No. L-63915, April 24, 1985, ESCOLIN, J. The requirement of publication in the Ocial Gazette, even if the law itself provides for the date of its eectivity cannot be dispensed with. Facts: Tanada seeks for the issuance of writ of mandamus to compel public o>cials to publish or cause to be published in the O>cial Gazette of various presidential decrees, letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letter of implementation and administrative orders because it involves public interest. Tuvera dismissed the case outright beacause Tanada has no legal personality to Ble petition for mandamus since he is not an aggrieved party which what the law requires that only a person who is personally and directly aDected by non-publication of laws would have the personality to Ble such. Tuvera further contends that publication in the O>cial Gazette is not a sine qua non requirement for eDectivity of laws where the laws themselves provide for their own eDectivity dates and since the presidential issuances in question contain special provisions as to the date they are to take eDect, publication in the O>cial Gazette is not indispensable for their eDectivity. Issue: Whether or not the requirement of publication can be dispensed with. Ruling: No. The requirement of publication in the O>cial Gazette, even if the law itself provides for the date of its eDectivity cannot be dispensed with. Thus, Section 1 of Commonwealth Act 638 provides as follows: Section 1.There shall be published in the O>cial Gazette [1] all important legislative acts and resolutions of a public nature of the, Congress of the Philippines; [2] all executive and administrative orders and proclamations, except such as have no general applicability; [3] decisions or abstracts of decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals as may be deemed by said courts of su>cient importance to be so published; [4] such documents or classes of documents as may be required so to be published by law; and [5] such documents or classes of documents as the President of the Philippines shall determine from time to time to have general applicability and legal eDect, or which he may authorize so to be published. The word "shall" used therein imposes upon public o>cials an imperative duty. That duty must be enforced if the Constitutional right of the people to be informed on matters of public concern is to be given substance and reality. The law itself makes a list of what should be published in the O>cial Gazette. Such listing, to our mind, leaves public o>cials with no discretion whatsoever as to what must be included or excluded from such publication.

2 | Page

Persons and Family Relations Law The clear object of the above-quoted provision is to give the general public adequate notice of the various laws which are to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens. Without such notice and publication, there would be no basis for the application of the maxim "ignorantia legis non excusat." It would be the height of injustice to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a law of which he had no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one. The publication of all presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general applicability" is mandated by law. Obviously, presidential decrees that provide for Bnes, forfeitures or penalties for their violation or otherwise impose a burden or the people, such as tax and revenue measures, fall within this category. Other presidential issuances which apply only to particular persons or class of persons such as administrative and executive orders need not be published on the assumption that they have been circularized to all concerned. It is needless to add that the publication of presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general applicability" is a requirement of due process. It is a rule of law that before a person may be bound by law, he must Brst be o>cially and speciBcally informed of its contents. In a time of proliferating decrees, orders and letters of instructions which all form part of the law of the land, the requirement of due process and the Rule of Law demand that the O>cial Gazette as the o>cial government repository promulgate and publish the texts of all such decrees, orders and instructions so that the people may know where to obtain their o>cial and speciBc contents.

LORENZO M. TANADA ET AL v. HON. JUAN C. TUVERA G.R. No. L-63915, December 29, 1986, CRUZ, J. The clause "unless it is otherwise provided" under Article 2 of the Civil Code refers to the date of eectivity and not to the requirement of publication itself, which cannot in any event be omitted. Facts: Tanada requested for publication of presidential decrees for public purposes. The government argued that while publication is necessary as a ruled, it is not so when it is "otherwise provided," as when the decrees themselves declared that they were to become eDective immediately upon their approval. Issue: Whether or not the clause "unless it is otherwise provided" refers to the date of eDectivity and not to the requirement of publication itself Ruling: Yes. Article 2 of the Civil Code states that laws shall take eDect after Bfteen days following the completion of their publication in the O>cial Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided. This Code shall take eDect one year after such publication. After a careful study of this provision, SC have come to the conclusion and so hold, that the clause "unless it is otherwise provided" refers to the date of eDectivity and not to the requirement of publication itself, which cannot in any event be

3 | Page

Persons and Family Relations Law omitted. This clause does not mean that the legislature may make the law eDective immediately upon approval, or on any other date, without its previous publication. Publication is indispensable in every case, but the legislature may in its discretion provide that the usual Bfteen-day period shall be shortened or extended. It is not correct to say that under the disputed clause publication may be dispensed with altogether. The reason is that such omission would oDend due process insofar as it would deny the public knowledge of the laws that are supposed to govern the legislature could validly provide that a law e eDective immediately upon its approval notwithstanding the lack of publication (or after an unreasonably short period after publication), it is not unlikely that persons not aware of it would be prejudiced as a result and they would be so not because of a failure to comply with but simply because they did not know of its existence, SigniBcantly, this is not true only of penal laws as is commonly supposed. One can think of many non-penal measures, like a law on prescription, which must also be communicated to the persons they may aDect before they can begin to operate. SC holds therefore that all statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for their eDectivity, which shall begin Bfteen days after publication unless a diDerent eDectivity date is Bxed by the legislature.

PHILSA INTERNATIONAL PLACEMENT and SERVICES CORPORATION v. THE HON. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, VIVENCIO DE MESA, RODRIGO MIKIN and CEDRIC LEYSON G.R. No. 103144, April 4, 2001, GONZAGA-REYES, J. All statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for their eectivity, which shall begin $fteen days after publication unless a dierent eectivity date is $xed by the legislature. Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the President in the exercise of legislative powers whenever the same are validly delegated by the legislature or, at present, directly conferred by the Constitution: Administrative rules and regulations must also be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation. Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and the public, need not be published. Neither is publication required of the so-called letter of instructions issued by the administrative superiors concerning the rules or guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the performance of their duties Facts: Philsa International Placement and Services Corporation is a domestic corporation engaged in the recruitment of workers for overseas employment. It recruited private respondents for employment in Saudi and made to pay placement fees. However when the private reached the Saudi they were made to sign contracts resulting to some reduction of their beneBts but they refused to do sp. Due to their refusal they, were terminated and repatriated back in the Philippines. Thereafter, the Bled a complaint of illegal exaction against Philsa which the Secretary of Labor found it guilty of such for collecting fees beyond the prescribed by law. Philsa insists however, that it cannot be held liable for illegal exaction as POEA Memorandum

4 | Page

Persons and Family Relations Law Circular No. 11, Series of 1983, which enumerated the allowable fees which may be collected from applicants, is void for lack of publication. Issue: Whether or not Philsa is guilty of illegal exaction despite the fact that the POEA Memorandum Circular No. 11, Series of 1983 was not published. Ruling: No. In Tañada vs. Tuvera, the Court held, as follows: that all statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for their eDectivity, which shall begin Bfteen days after publication unless a diDerent eDectivity date is Bxed by the legislature. Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the President in the exercise of legislative powers whenever the same are validly delegated by the legislature or, at present, directly conferred by the Constitution: Administrative rules and regulations must also be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation. Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and the public, need not be published. Neither is publication required of the so-called letter of instructions issued by the administrative superiors concerning the rules or guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the performance of their duties." Applying this doctrine, SC ruled that the abovementioned Memorandum shall be ineDective since it lacks publication which makes Philsa not liable for illegal exaction.

UNCIANO PARAMEDICAL COLLEGE INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 100335, April 7, 1993, NOCON, J. It is a settled rule that when a doctrine of the Supreme Court is overruled and a dierent view is adopted, the new doctrine should be applied prospectively, and should not apply to parties who had relied on the old doctrine and acted on the faith thereof. Facts: Elena Villegas and Ted Magallanes were students of Unciano Paramedical College Inc. After their Brst term, they were no longer allowed to enroll due to allegedly being members of National Union of Students of the Philippines and League of Filipinos O>cers which they organized despite the prohibition to organize such. Unciano cited the ruling in Alcuaz which was promulgated on 1988 that when a college student registered in a school, it is understood that he is only enrolling for the entire semester. Thus it also refuted the argument of Villegas and Magallanes that since in a more recent case of Ariel Non, et al. vs. Hon. Sancho Dames promulgated in 1990 (185 SCRA 523), the Supreme Court, abandoned and overruled its decision in Alcuaz since it was promulgated later when the contract has already been terminated. Thus, it cannot apply retroactively. Issue:

5 | Page

Persons and Family Relations Law Whether or not the ruling in the case of Ariel Non et al vs. Hon Dames may be applied retroactively. Ruling: No. Settled is the rule that when a doctrine of this Court is overruled and a diDerent view is adopted, the new doctrine is applied prospectively, and should not apply to parties who relied on the old doctrine and acted on the faith thereof. Under Article 4 of the New Civil Code, Laws shall have no retroactive eDect, unless the contrary is provided. Furthermore, Under Article 8 of the New Civil Code states that Judicial decision applying or interpreting the laws or constitution shall form a part of the legal system. Thus, since judicial decisions are laws it shall not have retroactive eDect unless otherwise provided. The ruling in the Non case should not be given a retroactive eDect to cases that arose before its promulgation. If it were otherwise, it would result in oppression to petitioners and other schools similarly situated who relied on the ruling in the Alcuaz case.

EMETERIO CUI v. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY G.R. No. L-15127, May 30, 1961, CONCEPCION, J. In order to declare a contract void as against public policy, a court must $nd that the contract as to consideration or the thing to be done, contravenes some established interest of society, or is inconsistent with sound policy and good morals or tends clearly to undermine the security of individual rights. Facts: Cui was a student of Arellano University from prelaw up to fourth year Brst semester in the College of law. By that time he was a scholar of such university and his tuition fees were reimbursed after each semester. The scholarship agreement however stipulates that in consideration of the scholarship granted to him by the University, he waives his right to transfer to another school without having refunded to the University the equivalent of his scholarship cash. But after in his fourth year last semester, he transferred to College of Law Abad Santos University thus he graduated therein. The conMict arose when he needed his law school records for taking up the bar exam but Arellano University contended that it will only release such upon payment of reimbursed tuition fees. Thus, Director of private schools issued a Memorandum which states that the amount in tuition and other fees corresponding to these scholarships should not be subsequently charged to the recipient students when they decide to quit school or to transfer to another institution for it is against public policy. When students are given full or partial scholarships, it is understood that such scholarships are merited and earned. Scholarships should not be oDered merely to attract and keep students in a school. Issue: Whether or not the Contract of Scholarship entered into by the Cui and Arellano waiving the formers right to transfer to another school without having

6 | Page

Persons and Family Relations Law refunded to the University the equivalent of his scholarship cash is void for it is against public policy. Ruling: Yes, Under Article 6 of the New Civil Code states that Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. In order to declare a contract void as against public policy, a court must Bnd that the contract as to consideration or the thing to be done, contravenes some established interest of society, or is inconsistent with sound policy and good morals or tends clearly to undermine the security of individual rights. It has been consistently held that under the principles relating to the doctrine of public policy, as applied to the law of contracts, courts of justice will not recognize or uphold a transaction which its object, operation, or tendency is calculated to be prejudicial to the public welfare, to sound morality or to civic honesty. Thus, if Arellano University understood clearly the real essence of scholarships it should have not entered into a contract of waiver with Cui, which is a direct violation of the Memorandum and an open challenge to the authority of the Director of Private Schools because the contract was repugnant to sound morality and civic honesty.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE JABINAL Y CARMEN G.R. No. L-30061, February 27, 1974, ANTONIO, J. Decisions of the Court, although in themselves not laws, are nevertheless evidence of what the laws mean. Facts: Jose Jabinal was charged with illegal possession of Brearms and ammunition without the required license permit on 1964. However, he contended that he was a Secret agent from the Provincial Governor of Batangas for prevention of crimes as well as ConBdential Agent from the PC Provincial Commander for prevention of smuggling. Thus the said appointments carried with them the authority to possess and carry the Brearm. His argument was relied on the Supreme Court's decision in People vs. Macarandang (1959) and People vs. Lucero (1958). However, the RTC convicted the accused on the basis that such decisions were already overturned by latest decision promulgated by the SC in People vs. Mapa on 1967 thereby Secret Agents were no longer exempted from license permit. Thus such ruling shall apply retroactively convicting the accused of such crime. Issue: Whether or not People vs. Mapa shall be applied retroactively, thus convicting Jabinal for illegal possession of Brearms. Ruling:

7 | Page

Persons and Family Relations Law No, Under Article 8 of the New Civil Code states that "Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system”. Decisions of this Court, although in themselves not laws, are nevertheless evidence of what the laws mean. The doctrine laid down in Lucero and Macarandang was part of the jurisprudence, hence of the law, of the land, at the time Jabinal was found in possession of the Brearm in question and when he arraigned by the trial court. It is true that the doctrine was overruled in the Mapa case in 1967, but when a doctrine of this Court is overruled and a diDerent view is adopted, the new doctrine should be applied prospectively, and should not apply to parties who had relied on the old doctrine and acted on the faith thereof. This is especially true in the construction and application of criminal laws, where it is necessary that the punishability of an act be reasonably foreseen for the guidance of society. It follows, therefore, that considering that Jabinal conferred his appointments as Secret Agent and ConBdential Agent and authorized to possess a Brearm pursuant to the prevailing doctrine enunciated in Macarandang and Lucero, under which no criminal liability would attach to his possession of said Brearm in spite of the absence of a license and permit therefor, appellant must be absolved. Certainly, He may not be punished for an act which at the time it was done was held not to be punishable.

ALICE REYES VAN DORN v. HON. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR. G.R. No. L-68470, October 8, 1985, MELENCIO-HERRERA, J. While it is true that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Phil...